A D TANNIRWAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question arising for decision in this petition under article 226 of the Constitution is whether an order terminating the service of a quasi-permanent civil servant which is void being in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution can be validated by retrospectively amending the service rules and depriving the civil servant of his quasi-permanent status,

(2.) THE petitioner, A. D. Tannirwar, was appointed as officiating Workshop Foreman in the Madhya Pradesh Education Class II Service in August 1964. By order, dated 22nd July 1966. the petitioner was transferred and appointed to officiate temporarily until further orders as Lecturer in Mechanical engineering in M. P. Education Service Class II. The petitioner was posted as a Lecturer in the Government Secondary Technical School, Jabalpur, against a vacant post. By order, dated 20th October 1966, the petitioner's services were terminated with immediate effect as no longer required. The petitioner, however, continued in service because the order, dated 20th October 1966, was kept in abeyance and was finally withdrawn on 23rd December 1966. In the order, dated 23rd December 1966, it was mentioned that the petitioner would have to compete along with other candidates for the post when it is advertised by the Public Service Commission. The posts of Lecturer including the petitioner's post were advertised by the Public Service Commission in 1965. The petitioner applied for the post, but he did not appear before the Public Service commission as his wife fell ill. It appears that no candidate was selected by the Public Service Commission for the post held by the petitioner in 1965 and the petitioner continued on the post. The post was again advertised by the public Service Commission only in 1972. The petitioner applied for the post, but he was not called for interview because by that time he had become overage and ineligible for appointment. The petitioner's services were terminated by order, dated 18th June 1975, with effect from 18th July 1975, that is, after expiry of one month from the date of the order. It will be seen that the petitioner had worked continuously for nearly 9 years on the post of Lecturer before his services were terminated. The petitioner filed this petition on 3rd July 1975 challenging the order of termination of his services. The main contention raised in the petition is that after continuous service of 5 years on the post of lecturer, the petitioner had acquired the status of quasi permanent and his services could not be terminated by giving one month's notice.

(3.) THE service conditions of temporary and quasi-permanent employees are governed by the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Temporary and quasi-permanent Service) Rules, 1960. These Rules were drastically amended with retrospective effect during the pendency of this petition. To appreciate the points requiring decision in this petition, it is necessary to refer to the rules as they were first made and then to refer to the subsequent amendments. Rule 2 (b) of the Rules defined quasi/permanent service to mean "temporary service commenced from such date as may be specified in that behalf in the declaration issued under rule 3 consisting of periods of duty and leave (other than extraordinary leave) after that date". Specified post was defined by rule 2 (c) to mean "a particular post, or the particular grade of posts within a cadre, in respect of which a Government servant is declared to be quasi-permanent under Rule 3. " Rule 8 provided as to when a Government servant would be deemed to be in quasi-permanent service. This rule reads as follows: